DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0356
4. BROUZOS. 687
was situated on the E. side. All the old sites are clustered in the
lower and more fertile parts. But that is not an a priori theory
on my part; it is a conclusion reached only after long exploration,
after much questioning of the natives, and several excursions to see
reported ' old stones ' in the fields. Exploration can rarely be reckoned
complete, and certainly our exploration of Sandykli-Ova is far from
complete; but, on the evidence as it stands, I cannot accept M. Badet's
suggestion, thrown out without any personal exploration1 and without
any corroboration from remains discovered there, that Otrous was
situated at Kusura.
Before we had explored the country, I suggested that Otrous might
be situated north from Kelendres, and MM. Legrand and Chamonard
return to that opinion2. But I have tried in vain to find any site in
that direction. The only traces of ancient life which we could find
were some insignificant Byzantine fragments at Tchukurja; and
MM. Legrand and Chamonard, who have been there, conclude (as I did)
that a Greek city could not reasonably be placed there. The two
French scholars cling to the opinion that Otrous may be somewhere
else in that neighbourhood, because (as they say) they were prevented
from examining it. I, who have examined it, have abandoned the
opinion—not definitively, but on the existing evidence, though I shall
gladly accept the results of any new exploration.
Tchor-Hissar is an ancient site; and on it lies a stone with an
inscr. which suits Otrous well, though it does not contain the name
of the city, no. 638. The site is surprisingly close to Hieropoiis, only
25 miles distant; but there is no reason to think that either Otrous or
Hieropoiis was a large city. Moreover the theory suggested by the
facts stated on no. 638 implies that Otrous must have been very near
the hieron. As a final argument, Tchor (which is not a common
Turkish name) may possibly be a corruption of the ancient name3.
Brouzos was, as we have seen, probably a Macedonian, i. e. Seleucid
military colony. Otrous was also a foreign settlement; and the theory
that naturally springs from its situation is that it was a katoikia of
mercenary soldiers, formed to strengthen Pergamenian influence in the
1 He was driven in a wagon rapidly corroboration to the theory arrived at
across the valley, prostrate from fever, on other grounds. Tchor means ' brack-
a situation deserving sympathy, but not ish water' ; and this name has no local
conducive to effective exploration. suitability. Probably the old name was
2 BCH 1893 p. 278. corrupted into a form that had a mean-
s The resemblance is too slight to ing in Turkish, cp. Sivasli p. 581,
constitute a reason of any independent Dumanli &c. p. 575.
value; but it may lend some feeble
was situated on the E. side. All the old sites are clustered in the
lower and more fertile parts. But that is not an a priori theory
on my part; it is a conclusion reached only after long exploration,
after much questioning of the natives, and several excursions to see
reported ' old stones ' in the fields. Exploration can rarely be reckoned
complete, and certainly our exploration of Sandykli-Ova is far from
complete; but, on the evidence as it stands, I cannot accept M. Badet's
suggestion, thrown out without any personal exploration1 and without
any corroboration from remains discovered there, that Otrous was
situated at Kusura.
Before we had explored the country, I suggested that Otrous might
be situated north from Kelendres, and MM. Legrand and Chamonard
return to that opinion2. But I have tried in vain to find any site in
that direction. The only traces of ancient life which we could find
were some insignificant Byzantine fragments at Tchukurja; and
MM. Legrand and Chamonard, who have been there, conclude (as I did)
that a Greek city could not reasonably be placed there. The two
French scholars cling to the opinion that Otrous may be somewhere
else in that neighbourhood, because (as they say) they were prevented
from examining it. I, who have examined it, have abandoned the
opinion—not definitively, but on the existing evidence, though I shall
gladly accept the results of any new exploration.
Tchor-Hissar is an ancient site; and on it lies a stone with an
inscr. which suits Otrous well, though it does not contain the name
of the city, no. 638. The site is surprisingly close to Hieropoiis, only
25 miles distant; but there is no reason to think that either Otrous or
Hieropoiis was a large city. Moreover the theory suggested by the
facts stated on no. 638 implies that Otrous must have been very near
the hieron. As a final argument, Tchor (which is not a common
Turkish name) may possibly be a corruption of the ancient name3.
Brouzos was, as we have seen, probably a Macedonian, i. e. Seleucid
military colony. Otrous was also a foreign settlement; and the theory
that naturally springs from its situation is that it was a katoikia of
mercenary soldiers, formed to strengthen Pergamenian influence in the
1 He was driven in a wagon rapidly corroboration to the theory arrived at
across the valley, prostrate from fever, on other grounds. Tchor means ' brack-
a situation deserving sympathy, but not ish water' ; and this name has no local
conducive to effective exploration. suitability. Probably the old name was
2 BCH 1893 p. 278. corrupted into a form that had a mean-
s The resemblance is too slight to ing in Turkish, cp. Sivasli p. 581,
constitute a reason of any independent Dumanli &c. p. 575.
value; but it may lend some feeble